List of Social Injustices that some prefer to ignore

[gnjsdad]

Are you saying that wages should be higher or lower?

Wages need to be higher. The just wage, according to Church teaching, is a wage high enough for a man to support his wife and family and to put some aside for savings.

And as a practical matter, what good are the products companies produce if the people living where the products are available can’t afford to buy them?

For an economy to dig itself out of recession, workers need adequate wages for spending.

Of course, the just wage has no chance of being implemented here as long as the American economy is a system of state sponsored usury. Also, the corporate acceptance of feminism (“equal pay for equal work”) works against it, too.

ManOnFire:

Everyone ones high wages on the eranings side and cheap prices on the consumerist side, so how will we ever rectify this without protectionism unless we all free wilingly agree to buy American and accept that we will only be able to afford less “stuff” without low cost imports? Personally, I’m fine with it. Please explain.

Protectionism probably is inadequate, when the real issue is wages that are too low. I would think that an economy based on the primacy of labor over capital would would help insure that prices did not get too far out of reach.

 

[ManOnFire]

Wages need to be higher. The just wage, according to Church teaching, is a wage high enough for a man to support his wife and family and to put some aside for savings.

What about our alter ego: the money spender? The value of money is only relevant to what it buys. If every item in the grocery and departments stores cost one penny, you could live very comfortably on half your existing salary. “Just wage” only goes so far as just price of goods and services. Regarding “Just Price,” would the Church mandate that we buy everything from China??? You can see that it won’t be long before our current problem escalates: everyone wants to be paid the most on the producer side and wants to pay the least on the consumer side, so it’s no wonder we have such debt.

Anyone who wants more money merely needs to spend less on entertainment. If people totalled up what they spend for electric windows on cars, deluxe cable, deluxe phone, people would be shocked how much wealthier they would be. Here in the US, we don’t have hordes of starving skin-on-bone workers living in the streets, that’s why the issue of just wage is so difficult. You’ll always have a certain percentage of whiners who would blow the money on entertainment even if you gave it to them to put in their savings.

 

[ManOnFire]

And as a practical matter, what good are the products companies produce if the people living where the products are available can’t afford to buy them?

For an economy to dig itself out of recession, workers need adequate wages for spending.

Some claim that deflation won’t work. Why? If bloated prices deflate, then income doesn’t need to rise because personal buying power is increased through the lower prices. Consumers go out and spend money when they see deals. If corporations are the enemy of so many, then it’s the corporations’ profits that will be shaved with lower prices. The workers will still have jobs. Workers would make their usual paycheck with no raise, corporations keep the wheels turning and be happy with minimal profits until we recover, and the economy slowly improves. Sounds good to me, but Econ is not my specialty, so go easy on me.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Some claim that deflation won’t work. Why? …

Many homes are deflating now thus massive forclosures because the asset is worth less than the price of the loan, so massive defaults are expected to follow deflation.

 

[zz912]

I do not know where you are getting this from. In 1918 the US budget was swollen triple (~ 5.5 billion to ~17 billion) from World War I which ended late that year. In 1919 the budget was even higher over 23 billion from the affects of the war. To start 1920 the budget was slashed to about 11 billion. Budgets are fiscal policy. The Fed also moved to tight monetary policy by raising rates from about 4.5% to 7.0%. So the slashing of federal spending (fiscal) combined with tightening (monetary) contributed greatly to the 1920 recession. In the summer of 1920 the fed reversed course and loosened monetary policy backward to 4.5%.

Will you show us your income data now?

Your point was that Strong died before the Crash of 29, and he possibly could have prevented the Crash, and my question to you was how do you know this, since he didn’t prevent the Depression of 1920? How did his policies change between then that would have prevented the Crash of 29?

Here is the income data:

As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation’s income and income taxes paid.* In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, *compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)

of Returns AGI($ millions) / Income Taxes Paid($ millions) / Group’s Share of Total AGI / Group’s Share of Income Taxes​

All Taxpayers
139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100%

Top 1%
1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 **20.00% 38.02% **

1-5%
5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70%

Top 5%
6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 **34.73% 58.72% **

5-10%
6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22%

Top 10%
13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94%

10-25%
20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40%

Top 25%
34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34%

25-50%
34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96%

Top 50%
69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30%

Bottom 50%
69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

 

[pnewton]

I’m specifically disagreeing with the hypocrites who cheat on their taxes after voting for higher taxes for more social programs. It’s cowardly, yet you don’t hear the mainstream media calling out the hypocrites.

Perhaps the mainstream media, like you and I, have no hard data (or any data) that correlates cheating on taxes with any sort of political position. Yes, it is wrong to cheat on taxes, but your position is pure conjecture.

 

[pnewton]

Should be real careful with this. It is not really the case. You are not allowed to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life candidate available. There are other rules as well that pertain to voting. Voting a certain way can most CERTAINLY be a sin.

Pro-life and pro-abortion are not diametric opposites. That would be pro-life and anti-life; or as I prefer, pro-aboriton and anti-abortion. What you are saying is not Church teaching and you will not find it in Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

I have found that people tend to ignore, distort or minimize any Social teaching that goes against their own political views. We have those that ignore the evil of abortion and the disorder of homosexuality. In the recent discussion of unions, I note that the teaching that unions are not to engage in politics is also ignored.

On the other hand, the teaching of the right of workers to unions is ignored by some, as well as the duty of prosperous nations for the poor. Caritas in Veritate produced quite a stir with that one. The third thing that pops to mind is the Church’s teaching on immigration. This is often ignored by conservatives who find it inconvenient.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Only Keynesian economists. And there are a LOT of economists who disagree with voodoo-Keynesianism. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? They did exactly what should have been done in 1929, and in 2008, which is cut back govt and govt spending drastically. The depression in 1920 was WORSE than 1929, and yet, America bounced back in under 18 months. They tried Keynesianism in 1929-45, and extended the depression for almost 2 decades.

I’d stick with the one that worked, wouldn’t you?

And statistics can be made to say anything you want, and of the top 1% of income earners, they pay 40-45% of all income taxes, but only bring in about 28% of all income.

The guy in charge died between 1920 and 1929, did you know that? Some writers believe had he not died the great deprssion would not have existed. ? I did That is not correct, you wrote “income taxes” that is not correct about “income taxes” **you have to learn to parse your words to **make these claims, that is part of why educated people see through the fascia at a greater rate.

Hope that helps

btw- his name was Benjamin Strong, Jr. if you wish to read on the subject

Your point was that Strong died before the Crash of 29, and he possibly could have prevented the Crash, and my question to you was how do you know this, since he didn’t prevent the Depression of 1920? How did his policies change between then that would have prevented the Crash of 29?

Here is the income data:

As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum plummeted from 2007 to 2008, as did their share of the nation’s income and income taxes paid.* In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid **38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes *****and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)

of Returns AGI($ millions) / Income Taxes Paid($ millions) / Group’s Share of Total AGI / Group’s Share of Income Taxes​

All Taxpayers
139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100%

Top 1%
1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 **20.00% 38.02% **

1-5%
5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70%

Top 5%
6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 **34.73% 58.72% **

5-10%
6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22%

Top 10%
13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94%

10-25%
20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40%

Top 25%
34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34%

25-50%
34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96%

Top 50%
69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30%

Bottom 50%
69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

All income taxes and federal income taxes are considerable different by about 2:1. People often are taxed at 40% of which about 22% is collected in the federal income system. The rest is collected else where. Since the federal income tax is the last tax and credits or adjusts for earlier taxes it is misleading to misrepresent it as an equal tax. It is designed more as an equalizer tax.

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I do not know where you are getting this from. In 1918 the US budget was swollen triple (~ 5.5 billion to ~17 billion) from World War I which ended late that year. In 1919 the budget was even higher over 23 billion from the affects of the war. To start 1920 the budget was slashed to about 11 billion. Budgets are fiscal policy. The Fed also moved to tight monetary policy by raising rates from about 4.5% to 7.0%. So the slashing of federal spending (fiscal) combined with tightening (monetary) contributed greatly to the 1920 recession. ** In the summer of 1920 the fed reversed course and loosened monetary policy **backward to 4.5%.

Will you show us your income data now?

Your point was that Strong died before the Crash of 29, and he possibly could have prevented the Crash, and my question to you was how do you know this, since he didn’t prevent the Depression of 1920? How did his policies change between then that would have prevented the Crash of 29?

…

Strong lead the recovery on 1920 by loosening the money supply, an event he would have likely repeated to speed recovery in 1929-1930. However once he died a political battle ensued by which Washington DC based Federal Reserve increase its power over the New York Fed. The DC base repeated the old philosophy which was to reduce money supply to equal GDP, thus worsening the depression from 1929-1940

 

[zz912]

All income taxes and federal income taxes are considerable different by about 2:1. People often are taxed at 40% of which about 22% is collected in the federal income system. The rest is collected else where. Since the federal income tax is the last tax and credits or adjusts for earlier taxes it is misleading to misrepresent it as an equal tax. It is designed more as an equalizer tax.

hope that helps

Nope, those numbers are for federal only. State income taxes make the numbers even worse.

Bring your own numbers to the table and we can discuss.

 

[zz912]

Strong lead the recovery on 1920 by loosening the money supply, an event he would have likely repeated to speed recovery in 1929-1930. However once he died a political battle ensued by which Washington DC based Federal Reserve increase its power over the New York Fed. The DC base repeated the old philosophy which was to reduce money supply to equal GDP, thus worsening the depression from 1929-1940

You are drastically overstating the influence of monetary supply as the main driver of economic recovery. Monetary supply has some effect, but government spending, regulation, and unease have FAR more influence into economic recovery.

And my point was you stated that the Depression would have been avoided if Strong had not died, which is false. You may believe that he would have been a mitigating factor to the severity and length of the Great Depression, but he wouldn’t have been able to avert it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Only Keynesian economists. And there are a LOT of economists who disagree with voodoo-Keynesianism. Have you ever heard of the Great Depression of 1920? They did exactly what should have been done in 1929, and in 2008, which is cut back govt and govt spending drastically. The depression in 1920 was WORSE than 1929, and yet, America bounced back in under 18 months. They tried Keynesianism in 1929-45, and extended the depression for almost 2 decades.

I’d stick with the one that worked, wouldn’t you?..

The guy in charge died between 1920 and 1929, did you know that? **Some writers believe had he not died the great deprssion would not have existed. ** ? I did That is not correct, you wrote “income taxes” that is not correct about “income taxes” you have to learn to parse your words to make these claims, that is part of why educated people see through the fascia at a greater rate.

Hope that helps

btw- his name was Benjamin Strong, Jr. if you wish to read on the subject

You are drastically overstating the influence of monetary supply as the main driver of economic recovery. Monetary supply has some effect, but government spending, regulation, and unease have FAR more influence into economic recovery.

And my point was you stated that the Depression would have been avoided if Strong had not died, which is false. You may believe that he would have been a mitigating factor to the severity and length of the Great Depression, but he wouldn’t have been able to avert it.

I’ll let you re-read the actual statement. Had there been a normal recession in 1929-1930 it would not be known as the “Great depression”

…
And statistics can be made to say anything you want, and of the top 1% of income earners, they pay 40-45% of all income taxes, but only bring in about 28% of all income.

Nope, those numbers are for federal only. State income taxes make the numbers even worse.

Bring your own numbers to the table and we can discuss.

As mentioned earlier federal income taxes are designed to adjust. Remember the top 400 individual incomes are 2/3 capital gains thus they do not pay the normal income tax rated but rather pay a “capital gains” rate which is much lower. Here is a similar study articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx look at the real calculated tax rate of a 30 year old making $20,000 verses the numbers you posted. A rather drastic difference?

 

[ManOnFire]

Many homes are deflating now thus massive forclosures because the asset is worth less than the price of the loan, so massive defaults are expected to follow deflation.

But how significant is it expected to be compared to the consequences of prolonged high unemployment?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But how significant is it expected to be compared to the consequences of prolonged high unemployment?

Housing deflation creates unemployment; more deflation means more unemployment if the fed tightens money which increases the value of money the problem becomes worse. Here is an example A house is worth $300K in year 1, if houses deflate 25% in year 2 making that same house worth 225k, greatly increasing defaults. The defaults cause job losses at the lender and in new construction, minimal new loans, minimal new construction. So if the Fed tightens which makes the $300k mortgage more expensive to pay and thus increases default rates, the vicious cycle repeats. If the Fed loosens then the $300k mortgage is cheaper to repay and default rates lower, and thus the cycle attempts to reverse.

hope that helps

 

[Trader]

1. You have secret knowledge both as to who is cheating on their taxes, and who is voting for more money for social programs of which you disapprove. You came by this knowledge illegally if you have it.
   .

It could be that the original poster is following the forum rules on political discussion by not specifically mentioning a particular pro-abortion catholic congressman from New York who was recently censured for, among other things, cheating the taxpayers of New York, Virginia, and the United States. He claimed both New York and Virginia as his principal residence to get homestead tax deductions on both properties and failed to report rental income from a luxury condominium in the Domincan Republic. Reporting the income would have made him ineligible for the benefits of rent control on real estate used for his office.

Or maybe not.

 

[ManOnFire]

Many homes are deflating now thus massive forclosures because the asset is worth less than the price of the loan, so massive defaults are expected to follow deflation.

But if people are still working at some job, even if it’s not as high paying as before, and have the sense to sacrifice spending on entertainment instead of their mortgage, then defaults would be at a minimum. The malls and restaurants are still packed where I live. If people’s priorities are straight, then defaults should be minimal.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But if people are still working at some job, even if it’s not as high paying as before, and have the sense to sacrifice spending on entertainment instead of their mortgage, then defaults would be at a minimum. The malls and restaurants are still packed where I live. If people’s priorities are straight, then defaults should be minimal.

The problem you have to address is people who purchased a $250k house and walked out owing $260K if that house is now worth $199k and the mortgage with missed payment is $270k they can hide the mortgage payments, sell the house, declare bankruptcy, and re-buy the house reducing the mortgage! They could move from $260k debt to $177k debt, this is the core problem with deflation it penalizes ownership.

 

[ManOnFire]

Perhaps the mainstream media, like you and I, have no hard data (or any data) that correlates cheating on taxes with any sort of political position. Yes, it is wrong to cheat on taxes, but your position is pure conjecture.

Cheating on taxes is wrong, but my point is that there are “some” number of people who vote for more money for social programs, then pat themselves on the backs for being righteous and helpful, then cheat on their taxes, which cheats the very people they claimed to help. They refuse to see it because the ego boost is too much fun. This act dishes the tax liability for these social programs onto honest people who pay their fair share of taxes. “Some” of these people in fact exist. I know first hand that it isn’t conjecture. Voters who vote for lower taxes and who don’t cheat on them are defenseless against the masses of hypocrites who are voting for more money for social programs, then cowardly deflecting the responsibility onto others in society. If life were like the movie “Liar, Liar” where everyone was forced to tell the truth and pay their fair share of taxes, many people would vote differently, once they were forced to see the ugliness of their hypocrisy. Many of them are doing it to make themselves feel better, without sacrificaing anything of their own. The worst part about it is their good feelings positively reinforce MORE of this hypocritical behavior. There can’t be justice as long as the ugliness of the hypocrisy continues. When are we going to have justice in this matter?

Our society has a general lack of understanding of the economics of business, an addiction to selfish entertainment of self, but we don’t have hordes of starving, naked people living in the streets. That’s the truth.

 

[ManOnFire]

The problem you have to address is people who purchased a $250k house and walked out owing $260K if that house is now worth $199k and the mortgage with missed payment is $270k they can hide the mortgage payments, sell the house, declare bankruptcy, and re-buy the house reducing the mortgage! They could move from $260k debt to $177k debt, this is the core problem with deflation it penalizes ownership.

How can they rebuy the house if their credit is ruined??? They shouldn’t be allowed to do this. If they are, then change the laws. What a home is worth now is only ink on paper. What people forget is that home values should go back up in a few years once this is over. People shouldn’t panic over what someone else is telling them their home is worth now if they are planning to stay there long term.